Juvenile Expungement Record

In People v Smith, Ricky Franklin Smith pled guilty to breaking and entering and being a fourth offense habitual offender in a Michigan Courtroom. Smith was sentenced and he believed his sentence was harsh so he appealed his sentence to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Smith’s counsel argued Smith was “entitled to be resentenced because the presentence investigation report contained references to his juvenile criminal record which had been automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913.[5]” (People v Smith, 1991). In two previous cases, People v Price (1988) and People v Jones (1988), the Michigan Court of Appeals issued contradicting rulings regarding using juvenile records during sentencing.

Skip Hollandsworth candidly explores the subjects of juvenile crime and sentencing in the electronic long form newspaper article, “The Prisoner”. The purpose of the essay is to inform the reader about juvenile sentencing and to persuade the audience that there are clear problems with aspects of the U.S. prison system. The article is easily accessible to a large audience because it is online. Hollandsworth takes into account that his audience, mostly consisting of Texas Monthly readers, may already have pre-established notions about the topic, so he considers other sides while still supporting his argument. Edwin Debrow, a preteen member of the Crips, committed a murder when he was 12-years old and received a 27-year sentence through the

Edward Humes is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, non-fiction, and true crime writer. Of his twelve books, five involve the criminal justice system. In this work, Humes takes on the sizeable task of examining the complicated juvenile justice system, chronicling the stories of several juvenile offenders and juvenile justice officials, and how they navigate the confusing and often arbitrary laws of the California juvenile justice system. Humes delivers an informative, eye-opening, and often dispiriting account of what goes on in the halls of America’s juvenile courts and correctional

JUVENILE TRANSFER TO ADULT COURTS A Look at the Prototypes for Dangerousness, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment Through A Legal Lens http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/journals/law/8/4/373.html

The “Juvenile and Adult Courts: A Comparative Analysis” paper will compare juvenile courts with adult courts. This paper will present an overview of the juvenile justice system, a point-by-point comparison between juvenile and adult courts. The adjudication process by which a juvenile is transferred to the adult court system. This paper will also discuss the implications of the following for youthful offenders: The trend of increasing the use of waivers, and the trend of remanding juveniles to adult court for processing. The last topic addressed in this paper will be the societal implications

According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “was the crime committed” to “why did the child commit the crime”, “how can we help the child”. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. In this paper I am going to discuss the three primary mechanisms of waiver to adult court: judicial waiver

In this paper, I will be discussing both the juvenile and the adult justice systems. There are several differences between the two systems, which may surprise you. I will be discussing many aspects within the justice systems. These include Terminology, Due Process rights, the process of Arrest to Corrections, Juvenile crime compared to Adult crime, age limits and waivers for the adult system and the different community correctional options, which are available to the offenders. The two systems share many of the same terms but not all terms are shared by both systems. In summary, the juvenile justice system and the adult justice system, vary in many ways and are alike in many ways.

With the escalation of murders and rapes committed by minors as seen in recent years the people are looking for the right answer. Public concern over the effectiveness of the juvenile courts when dealing with these offenders has brought about change in the justice system. (Stolba, 2001). The courts now, are quicker to transfer a juveniles’ case to adult court than when the juvenile system was first formed. There stands a conflict of interests within the two court systems. Juvenile courts are to protect the rights of youths determined incapable of adult decisions. The primary concern is that the youth be rehabilitated and not become a repeat offender. Thus, protecting the child from incarceration with adult criminals and any possible future victims. The concerns of the adult court is to make sure the convicted offender pays for their crime and that the victim gets justice. Rehabilitation is not a primary concer of the adult justice system.

The expunction of records is the removal of one’s criminal record and/or conviction(s). Once a juvenile has aged out of the juvenile court system the expungement process is complete, unless within seven years the juvenile, now an adult has committed another crime. An expungement is normally only accessible for viewing by certain government agencies such as law enforcement and the criminal courts. It is important that juveniles are given time to grow and reflect as they enter into adulthood, despite the poor decisions that were made as an adolescent. True rehabilitation can change a juvenile into a productive citizen. Due to the fact the adolescent brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25, all prior decision making may be explained by

This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.

The purpose of the law that expunge a juvenile offender’s record of delinquency when he or she reaches a certain age is to allow young offenders who have been found guilty of their mistakes when they were a youth to enter adulthood without the negative unfair beliefs that a society or people have pertaining to the disapproval that most have when they hear about someone past that has an impression or a mark of disgrace that comes from having a criminal record. In the case of the people verse Smith, the defendant Ricky Franklin Smith was convicted from the basis of his guilty plea of breaking and entering and of being an offender previously convicted of a repeat of the same type illegal act. Smith’s argument is that he should be resentenced

As a contrast, there are many differences between the adult and juvenile justice system. These differences consist of the right to a jury, the right to post bail, leniency of evidence, different court proceedings, the right to a public trial, and rehabilitation efforts. As for the purpose of this paper, we will dissect the differences of the two systems. Many appeals have been filed under the notion that a right to a jury should be upheld for juvenile offenders. The courts have voted against this action time and time again. These appeals are made on the assumption that, as noted earlier, adult crimes should be tried as adult crimes. However, the court rules on this matter while keeping the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile courts in mind, as opposed to the more punitive measures. Their desire to see kids treated as kids are defined with their upholding of the law, and pushing rehabilitation to its max. But should rehabilitation be the prime focus when the act is of adult capacity; even in a child’s body? I do not think so. What are the percentages of rehabilitation success with adults for committed capital offenses? How are they going to differ when a child partakes in them? I think there is a

Throughout the times there have been arguments in which have been made for the separation of courts for youths and juvenile delinquents. Juvenile court is a special court, which deals with underage defendant whom are charged with crimes are neglected or are out of control of their parents. Throughout the following essay I will be discussing the purpose of the juvenile court, and whether or not that the purpose is being served today.

This paper takes a brief look at the history and evolution of the juvenile justice system in the United States. In recent years there has been an increase of juvenile cases being transferred into the adult court system. This paper will also look at that process and the consequences of that trend.

Juvenile justice has proved to be as imprudent as it is practical. Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that as early as 1825, there was a significant push to establish a separate juvenile justice system focused on rehabilitation and treatment. The procedure continued to stay focused on the rehabilitation of a person, even though financial support and assets sustained to hold back its achievement. In reaction to rising juvenile crime rates in the 1980s’, more corrective laws were approved (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). In the 1990s, the United States legal system took further steps regarding transfer provisions that lowered the threshold at which juveniles could be tried in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Furthermore, laws were enacted that allowed prosecutors and judges more discretion in their sentencing options; and confidentiality standards, which made juvenile court proceedings and records more available to the public (Snyder and Sickmund 1999), were reduced.